151–159 of 159 posts
Good. They should tough it out and grow a pair—of lungs, that is. Living in an aquatic environment has made all the fish grow soft. Time to evolve like the rest of us did. (More seriously, warm ocean dead spots affect more than just fish: I suspect we’ll see a further decline in marine mammals too, for example.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t deny it’s a massive conflict of interest. You cannot trust science done in such an environment, sorry.
I'm curious, Please find the list of funding bodies appended to the PLOS one article and let me know which presented a 'massive conflict of interest' due to being in the five years preceding that article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link. It’s interesting how CNN doesn’t report that 2030 is the bottom of their confidence interval. They might be correct, but I don’t have much faith. They have essentially done a temp-ice area regression to fit a model to 50 years of data. Thus they rely on the accuracy of the temp predictions of the IPCC models which I also don’t have much faith in. I lost a lot of confidence in them this year, unde…
> I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. That's called denial and hopium. > When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced We can't predict what local weather will be 3+ days from now. You're being unrealistic, at least.
There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution?
And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certain of attribution to GHG? I know people usually start talking about the precautionary principle at this point, but I think a big part of that is being skeptical of the models unless their predictions closely match observation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think any of these are really that critical: they will become a problem in a few centuries if we do absolutely nothing but will likely be fine. Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff in places that have a history of low oxygen. It’s good to put some resources towards fixing this, but it’s not useful to think of it as an extinction level problem that we “now have.”
> Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff Two types, not one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation#Types_and_...
I wouldn’t claim I have knowledge that it’s not a problem, but I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations. Until then, I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that probably gets you cut off the next time there's a burning oil rig to report on. More likely, the money from the expensive green-washing ads they buy is cut off. Anyway, I'm sick of profit motive being an excuse for media complicity in atrocity.
You know how a lot of people see those in the past as being ignorant and we wonder how they could not see the silly things they did... the older I get, the more that is how I see nowadays. Folks will look back on us in decades/centuries from now and go "what were they thinking? They knew what was happening, knew what had to be done but then didn't do it". There are two books by William T Volleman, the Carbon Ideologi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff Two types, not one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation#Types_and_...
Thanks for the info. I think my point stands for open ocean deoxygenation. It is a natural process that global warming makes worse. The critical point is how much worse? Is it now an existential risk or just slightly worse than before? I wouldn’t claim I have knowledge that it’s not a problem, but I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations. Until then, I just mentall…
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm3468
Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-devastating-greenland-antarcti...
'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago
https://www.commondreams.org/news/ocean-warming-study
the planet has accumulated as much heat in the past 15 years as it did in the previous 45 years, the majority of the excess heat has been absorbed by the oceans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-h...
A technical chart in a chapter of the latest UN climate assessment laid out the unfathomable heat gain. Between 1971 and 2018, the ocean had gained 396 zettajoules of heat.
How much heat is that? Scientists have calculated it is the equivalent energy of more than 25bn Hiroshima atomic bombs. And that heat gain is accelerating.
A study in January found the ocean gained 10 ZJ more in 2022 than the year before – enough heat to boil 700m kettles every second.
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-climate-ocean-plankton-microbe...
Warming climate could turn ocean plankton microbes into carbon emitters
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330316398_How_fast_...
How fast are the oceans warming? - Observational records of ocean heat content show that ocean warming is accelerating
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/world/four-climate-charts...
Four alarming charts that show just how extreme the climate is right now
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-lev...
Antarctic sea ice levels dive in 'five-sigma event', as experts flag worsening consequences for planet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
Scientists detect sign that a crucial ocean current is near collapse
> I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the...
https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/y...
"I conducted a data update to Limits to Growth (LtG), best known from the 1972 bestseller that forecasted a scenario of global societal collapse occurring around the present time if humanity did not alter its priorities. Empirical data comparisons since then indicated that the world was still heading for collapse. ... I found that the scenarios aligned closely with observed global data, which is a testament to the LtG work done decades ago. The two scenarios aligning most closely indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, which puts into question the usability of continuous growth as humanity’s goal in the 21st century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines, but only one—the scenario in which declines are caused by pollution, including greenhouse gas pollution—depicts a collapse pattern. The scenario with the smallest declines aligned least with empirical data, however, absolute differences were rarely big and sometimes insignificant. This suggests that it’s almost, but not yet, too late for society to change course."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Re...
"We unravel the arguments that have raged for forty years in its aftermath and explore more recent findings which relate to the original hypothesis. There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards. Detailed recent studies suggests that production of some key resources may only be decades away. Certain other limits to growth – less visible in the 1972 report – present equally pressing challenges to modern society. We highlight, in particular, recent work on our proximity to ‘planetary boundaries’ and illustrate this through the challenge of meeting the Paris Agreement on climate change. We also explore the economic challenge of a ‘secular stagnation’. If the Club of Rome is right, the next few decades are decisive."
> I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions
Ok :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. That's called denial and hopium. > When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced We can't predict what local weather will be 3+ days from now. You're being unrealistic, at least.
Haha perhaps, but I don’t think so. There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution? And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the info. I think my point stands for open ocean deoxygenation. It is a natural process that global warming makes worse. The critical point is how much worse? Is it now an existential risk or just slightly worse than before? I wouldn’t claim I have knowledge that it’s not a problem, but I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations. Until then, I just mentall…
> a natural process that global warming makes worse https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm3468 Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century https://phys.org/news/2023-04-devastating-greenland-antarcti... 'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago https://www.commond…
I see a lot of evidence that the planet has been/is warming, but still see lots of issues with the attribution / prediction / catastrophe papers. Take your KPMG report: it has lots of predictions of catastrophic trends, but cannot be used to make an actual prediction since "he LtG scenarios were thus not meant to produce point predictions, but rather to help us understand the behavior of systems in the world over time." "Although the steepness of a scenario’s decline cannot be used for predictive purposes (Meadows et al., 2004), it can be said that BAU2 shows a clear collapse pattern"
I believe the Lakatosian solution to the demarcation problem is best: judge a scientific programme by its progressiveness over time. Evidence of a progressive programme comes about through repeated confirmation of theory against evidence without adding arbitrary auxilliary hypothesis. I worry that some corners of climate change science are degenerate: when a model doesn't match predictions there is always an explanation using an auxillary hypothesis ("there are less fires than we predicted, but we now use a different metric. And our new metric is getting worse!!", "the record temps didn't appear in our model because we didn't include X, but will come eventually", "the coral didn't die because Y, but will die eventually", "the ice caps haven't melted yet because Z, but will eventually"). I'm not saying these auxillary hypothesis are necessarily wrong, just that they are used as excuses for wrong predictions. This years record heat was an opportunity for climate scientists to say: "see! We predicted this in 99% of our models, now you should trust us", instead we got "our models missed this, but because we didn't include X,Y,Z; so you should still trust the models." Even worse X,Y,Z have been known about for years so either the modeller thought they weren't important and was wrong, or thought they were important but didn't include the. Both scenarios worry me and feed my skepticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ray never denied receiving industry funding, and is pretty transparent about it. It's pretty common in fisheries science. Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather feeble in my opinion. As you said he is prolific in the field. Yet the best Greenpeace could do was get a correction published on a minor paper to say he received industry funding in the five years prior — but that didn't support that particular research [1]. He…
You can’t deny it’s a massive conflict of interest. You cannot trust science done in such an environment, sorry.
Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!